[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAeU0aMPZdG9r-en9qKLHcYwPbm-4=uTrZunXngj9WztCCoPgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 02:53:22 -0700
From: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...sity.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/28] quota: add extra inode count to dquot transfer functions
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> Heh, this "pushing of responsibility" looks like a silly game. If an error
> can happen in a function, it is better to report it as far as easily
> possible (unless we can cleanly handle it which we cannot here). I'm guilty
> of making dquot_free_inode() ignore errors from mark_all_dquot_dirty() and
> in retrospect it would have been better if these were propagated to the
> caller as well. And eventually we can fix this if we decide we care enough.
> I'm completely fine with just returning an error from dquot_free_inode()
> and ignore it in all the callers except for ext4. Then filesystems which
> care enough can try to handle the error. That way we at least don't
> increase the design debt from the past.
I sent an update but since patch title changed it landed in a new
email thread I think ("[PATCH v2 28/31] quota: add get_inode_usage
callback to transfer multi-inode charges"). I will respond to your
comment in that thread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists